Association between Inhaled β 2 -agonists Initiation and Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Population-based Nested Case-Control Study – ScienceOpen
24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      International Journal of COPD (submit here)

      This international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal by Dove Medical Press focuses on pathophysiological processes underlying Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) interventions, patient focused education, and self-management protocols. Sign up for email alerts here.

      39,063 Monthly downloads/views I 2.893 Impact Factor I 5.2 CiteScore I 1.16 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) I 0.804 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Association between Inhaled β 2-agonists Initiation and Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Population-based Nested Case-Control Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Despite ample evidence underpinning the efficacy of β 2-agonists in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the occurrence of β 1- and β 2-adrenoceptors in the heart suggests that β 2-agonists may have deleterious cardiac effects. We investigated the association between new users of long-or short-acting β 2-agonists (LABA or SABA) or ICS (inhaled corticosteroids)/LABA and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

          Methods

          A nested case–control analysis was conducted using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink of patients with asthma, COPD or asthma–COPD overlap with initial treatment of LABA, SABA, ICS/LABA, ICS, long-or short-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA or SAMA) between 01 January 1998 and 31 July 2018. The primary outcome was MACE, defined as the first occurrence of stroke, heart failure, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, or cardiovascular death. Each case was matched with up to 10 controls on age, sex, date of cohort-entry, and duration of follow-up. The risk of MACE associated with β 2-agonists was estimated using conditional logistic regression after controlling for potential confounders.

          Results

          The cohort included 180,567 new users of β 2-agonists, ICS, SAMA, or LAMA. Among asthmatics, β 2-agonists were not associated with the risk of MACE (SABA vs ICS: HR 1.29 [0.96–1.73]; ICS/LABA vs ICS, HR 0.75 [0.33–1.73]). In contrast, among COPD patients, LABA (HR, 2.38 [1.04–5.47]), SABA (HR, 2.02 [1.13–3.59]) and ICS/LABA (HR, 2.08 [1.04–4.16]) users had an increased risk of MACE compared with SAMA users. Among patients with asthma–COPD overlap, SABA (HR, 2.57 [1.26–5.24]) was associated with an increased risk of MACE compared with ICS.

          Conclusion

          In conclusion, initiation of LABA, SABA, or ICS/LABA in COPD or SABA in asthma–COPD overlap is associated with increased risk of MACE. No associations were observed among patients with asthma.

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Data Resource Profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)

          The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) is an ongoing primary care database of anonymised medical records from general practitioners, with coverage of over 11.3 million patients from 674 practices in the UK. With 4.4 million active (alive, currently registered) patients meeting quality criteria, approximately 6.9% of the UK population are included and patients are broadly representative of the UK general population in terms of age, sex and ethnicity. General practitioners are the gatekeepers of primary care and specialist referrals in the UK. The CPRD primary care database is therefore a rich source of health data for research, including data on demographics, symptoms, tests, diagnoses, therapies, health-related behaviours and referrals to secondary care. For over half of patients, linkage with datasets from secondary care, disease-specific cohorts and mortality records enhance the range of data available for research. The CPRD is very widely used internationally for epidemiological research and has been used to produce over 1000 research studies, published in peer-reviewed journals across a broad range of health outcomes. However, researchers must be aware of the complexity of routinely collected electronic health records, including ways to manage variable completeness, misclassification and development of disease definitions for research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Development and validation of a questionnaire to measure asthma control

            International guidelines on asthma management indicate that the primary goal of treatment should be optimum asthma control. The aim of this study was to develop and validate the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ). The authors generated a list of all symptoms used to assess control and sent it to 100 asthma clinicians who were members of guidelines committees (18 countries). They scored each symptom for its importance in evaluating asthma control. From the 91 responses, the five highest scoring symptoms were selected for the ACQ. In addition, there is one question on beta2-agonist use and another on airway calibre (total questions=7). The ACQ was tested in a 9-week observational study of 50 adults with symptomatic asthma. The ACQ and other measures of asthma health status were assessed at baseline, 1, 5 and 9 weeks. In patients whose asthma was stable between clinic visits, reliability of the ACQ was high (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.90). The questionnaire was very responsive to change in asthma control (p<0.0001). Cross-sectional and longitudinal validity were supported by correlations between the ACQ and other measures of asthma health status being close to a priori predictions. In conclusion, the Asthma Control Questionnaire has strong evaluative and discriminative properties and can be used with confidence to measure asthma control.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Salmeterol and fluticasone propionate and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

              Long-acting beta-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids are used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but their effect on survival is unknown. We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial comparing salmeterol at a dose of 50 microg plus fluticasone propionate at a dose of 500 microg twice daily (combination regimen), administered with a single inhaler, with placebo, salmeterol alone, or fluticasone propionate alone for a period of 3 years. The primary outcome was death from any cause for the comparison between the combination regimen and placebo; the frequency of exacerbations, health status, and spirometric values were also assessed. Of 6112 patients in the efficacy population, 875 died within 3 years after the start of the study treatment. All-cause mortality rates were 12.6% in the combination-therapy group, 15.2% in the placebo group, 13.5% in the salmeterol group, and 16.0% in the fluticasone group. The hazard ratio for death in the combination-therapy group, as compared with the placebo group, was 0.825 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.681 to 1.002; P=0.052, adjusted for the interim analyses), corresponding to a difference of 2.6 percentage points or a reduction in the risk of death of 17.5%. The mortality rate for salmeterol alone or fluticasone propionate alone did not differ significantly from that for placebo. As compared with placebo, the combination regimen reduced the annual rate of exacerbations from 1.13 to 0.85 and improved health status and spirometric values (P<0.001 for all comparisons with placebo). There was no difference in the incidence of ocular or bone side effects. The probability of having pneumonia reported as an adverse event was higher among patients receiving medications containing fluticasone propionate (19.6% in the combination-therapy group and 18.3% in the fluticasone group) than in the placebo group (12.3%, P<0.001 for comparisons between these treatments and placebo). The reduction in death from all causes among patients with COPD in the combination-therapy group did not reach the predetermined level of statistical significance. There were significant benefits in all other outcomes among these patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00268216 [ClinicalTrials.gov].). Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                copd
                International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                Dove
                1176-9106
                1178-2005
                20 May 2022
                2022
                : 17
                : 1205-1217
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland , St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
                [2 ]Faculty of Science, School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo , Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Zhiwei Gao, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University , 300 Prince Philip Drive, St. John’s, NL, A1B 3V6, Canada, Tel +17098646523, Email zhiwei.gao@med.mun.ca
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0459-7241
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6891-8721
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1719-8477
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5313-4884
                Article
                358927
                10.2147/COPD.S358927
                9130098
                35645559
                d96cdd78-98f8-43f8-8707-f065c11fbafa
                © 2022 Amegadzie et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                History
                : 27 January 2022
                : 03 April 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 7, References: 54, Pages: 13
                Funding
                Funded by: Canada Research Respiratory Network;
                This work was supported by a research grant from Canada Research Respiratory Network (CRRN), Ottawa, Canada (Young Investigator Award, 2017). The study funder was not involved in the study design or the writing of the protocol.
                Categories
                Original Research

                Respiratory medicine
                asthma,chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,nested case–control
                Respiratory medicine
                asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nested case–control

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content201

                Cited by7

                Most referenced authors945